From: Doug H. <dh...@um...> - 2006-11-29 14:49:11
|
Hi, I've had my Radmind Universal load working pretty well (10.4.5 through 10.4.7) until 10.4.8. Now I'm stuck. I can get my Universal 10.4.8 load to work on the Intel machines but not on the PPC. The load will work on the PPC if I start in Safe Boot. I've updated the loads (Intel and PPC) individually to 10.4.8 and they will both run on their corresponding hardware. Just not together as a universal (transcript in a transcript over lay). I've been watching the Radmind list but haven't seen a fix. I was able get Greg Neagles scripts working. They are a big change from the stock scripts I've been using. I was not able to get these scripts to fix the transition to 10.4.8. Do you have any recommendations for building a 10.4.8 Universal load or trouble shooting my problem? Wondered if there were any updated scripts similar to the ones that come with the Radmind assistant. Thanks, Doug ______________________________________ Doug Heady Information Systems Shared Support 503 Thompson St., Fleming Bldg., Room 108 Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1340 Phone: 734-615-3336 Fax: 734-615-3590 Computing Systems Support for: Presidents Office., Provost Office, VP for Gov't. Relations, VP for Communications, Regents, VP & Sec. of the Univ., OAMI, General Counsel, VP of Research, Budget & Planning, & VP of Student Affairs ISSS webpage: http://www.umich.edu/~isss |
From: Sam A. <sa...@qa...> - 2006-11-29 19:13:34
|
I don't have any problems with my 10.4.8 Universal and I don't have any of the fancy scripts running either. I built up my 10.4.8 Uni just the same as all the previous ones. I did the updates seperately on PPC-only and Intel-only systems and then stuck it back together. Double-check your work. You are probably overlooking something simple. A simple mistake I made early on was to do something like this: PPCbase.t Intelbase.t PPCupdates.k Intelupdates.k This will not work reliably. It should be like this: PPCbase.t PPCupdates.k Intelbase.t Intelupdates.k Just throwing out some ideas... Sam On 29 Nov 2006, at 17:48, Doug Heady wrote: > Hi, > > I've had my Radmind Universal load working pretty well (10.4.5 > through 10.4.7) until 10.4.8. Now I'm stuck. I can get my Universal > 10.4.8 load to work on the Intel machines but not on the PPC. The > load will work on the PPC if I start in Safe Boot. > > I've updated the loads (Intel and PPC) individually to 10.4.8 and > they will both run on their corresponding hardware. Just not together > as a universal (transcript in a transcript over lay). > > I've been watching the Radmind list but haven't seen a fix. I was > able get Greg Neagles scripts working. They are a big change from the > stock scripts I've been using. I was not able to get these scripts to > fix the transition to 10.4.8. > > Do you have any recommendations for building a 10.4.8 Universal load > or trouble shooting my problem? Wondered if there were any updated > scripts similar to the ones that come with the Radmind assistant. > > Thanks, > > Doug > > > > > ______________________________________ > > Doug Heady > Information Systems Shared Support > 503 Thompson St., Fleming Bldg., Room 108 > Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1340 > Phone: 734-615-3336 Fax: 734-615-3590 > Computing Systems Support for: Presidents Office., Provost Office, VP > for Gov't. Relations, VP for Communications, Regents, VP & Sec. of > the Univ., OAMI, General Counsel, VP of Research, Budget & Planning, > & VP of Student Affairs > ISSS webpage: http://www.umich.edu/~isss > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Radmind-users mailing list > Rad...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/radmind-users --- Sam Agnew Unix System Administrator Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar |
From: Mats-Olof L. <mo...@mp...> - 2006-11-30 07:15:25
|
> PCbase.t > PPCupdates.k > Intelbase.t > Intelupdates.k Is this working on every type of Mac? G3 to brand new Mac Book Pro? I am doing seperate transcripts now. Seems pretty stupid if I doin't have to. /Mats-Olof 29 nov 2006 kl. 20.13 skrev Sam Agnew: > I don't have any problems with my 10.4.8 Universal and I don't have > any of the fancy scripts running either. I built up my 10.4.8 Uni > just the same as all the previous ones. I did the updates > seperately on PPC-only and Intel-only systems and then stuck it > back together. Double-check your work. You are probably overlooking > something simple. > > A simple mistake I made early on was to do something like this: > > PPCbase.t > Intelbase.t > PPCupdates.k > Intelupdates.k > > This will not work reliably. It should be like this: > > PPCbase.t > PPCupdates.k > Intelbase.t > Intelupdates.k > > Just throwing out some ideas... > > Sam > > On 29 Nov 2006, at 17:48, Doug Heady wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I've had my Radmind Universal load working pretty well (10.4.5 >> through 10.4.7) until 10.4.8. Now I'm stuck. I can get my Universal >> 10.4.8 load to work on the Intel machines but not on the PPC. The >> load will work on the PPC if I start in Safe Boot. >> >> I've updated the loads (Intel and PPC) individually to 10.4.8 and >> they will both run on their corresponding hardware. Just not together >> as a universal (transcript in a transcript over lay). >> >> I've been watching the Radmind list but haven't seen a fix. I was >> able get Greg Neagles scripts working. They are a big change from the >> stock scripts I've been using. I was not able to get these scripts to >> fix the transition to 10.4.8. >> >> Do you have any recommendations for building a 10.4.8 Universal load >> or trouble shooting my problem? Wondered if there were any updated >> scripts similar to the ones that come with the Radmind assistant. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Doug >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________________ >> >> Doug Heady >> Information Systems Shared Support >> 503 Thompson St., Fleming Bldg., Room 108 >> Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1340 >> Phone: 734-615-3336 Fax: 734-615-3590 >> Computing Systems Support for: Presidents Office., Provost Office, VP >> for Gov't. Relations, VP for Communications, Regents, VP & Sec. of >> the Univ., OAMI, General Counsel, VP of Research, Budget & Planning, >> & VP of Student Affairs >> ISSS webpage: http://www.umich.edu/~isss >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---- >> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT >> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to >> share your >> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn >> cash >> http://www.techsay.com/default.php? >> page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV >> _______________________________________________ >> Radmind-users mailing list >> Rad...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/radmind-users > > --- > > Sam Agnew > Unix System Administrator > Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV________________________________ > _______________ > Radmind-users mailing list > Rad...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/radmind-users |
From: Mats-Olof L. <mo...@mp...> - 2006-12-14 14:36:50
|
If I had something like this: PPCbase.t PPCupdates.k Intelbase.t Intelupdates.k and I install a Intel update but not the PPC update, how would that effect PPC lbased Macs? PPCbase.t PPCupdates.k Intelbase.t Intelupdates.k Intelupdates2.k /Mats-Olof 29 nov 2006 kl. 20.13 skrev Sam Agnew: > I don't have any problems with my 10.4.8 Universal and I don't have > any of the fancy scripts running either. I built up my 10.4.8 Uni > just the same as all the previous ones. I did the updates > seperately on PPC-only and Intel-only systems and then stuck it > back together. Double-check your work. You are probably overlooking > something simple. > > A simple mistake I made early on was to do something like this: > > PPCbase.t > Intelbase.t > PPCupdates.k > Intelupdates.k > > This will not work reliably. It should be like this: > > PPCbase.t > PPCupdates.k > Intelbase.t > Intelupdates.k > > Just throwing out some ideas... > > Sam > > On 29 Nov 2006, at 17:48, Doug Heady wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I've had my Radmind Universal load working pretty well (10.4.5 >> through 10.4.7) until 10.4.8. Now I'm stuck. I can get my Universal >> 10.4.8 load to work on the Intel machines but not on the PPC. The >> load will work on the PPC if I start in Safe Boot. >> >> I've updated the loads (Intel and PPC) individually to 10.4.8 and >> they will both run on their corresponding hardware. Just not together >> as a universal (transcript in a transcript over lay). >> >> I've been watching the Radmind list but haven't seen a fix. I was >> able get Greg Neagles scripts working. They are a big change from the >> stock scripts I've been using. I was not able to get these scripts to >> fix the transition to 10.4.8. >> >> Do you have any recommendations for building a 10.4.8 Universal load >> or trouble shooting my problem? Wondered if there were any updated >> scripts similar to the ones that come with the Radmind assistant. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Doug >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________________ >> >> Doug Heady >> Information Systems Shared Support >> 503 Thompson St., Fleming Bldg., Room 108 >> Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1340 >> Phone: 734-615-3336 Fax: 734-615-3590 >> Computing Systems Support for: Presidents Office., Provost Office, VP >> for Gov't. Relations, VP for Communications, Regents, VP & Sec. of >> the Univ., OAMI, General Counsel, VP of Research, Budget & Planning, >> & VP of Student Affairs >> ISSS webpage: http://www.umich.edu/~isss >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---- >> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT >> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to >> share your >> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn >> cash >> http://www.techsay.com/default.php? >> page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV >> _______________________________________________ >> Radmind-users mailing list >> Rad...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/radmind-users > > --- > > Sam Agnew > Unix System Administrator > Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV________________________________ > _______________ > Radmind-users mailing list > Rad...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/radmind-users |
From: Sam A. <sa...@qa...> - 2006-12-14 18:03:23
|
In the case where there is no equivalent PPC update then obiviously there will only be the Intel update. This should have no effect when run on PPC. In cases where there are different PPC and Intel versions of the same update for Intel and PPC I would always do both. Doing only the Intel patch and then running the result on a PPC Mac may lead to a funny situation where something is "half-patched" with unpredictable results. It may in fact be fine but I wouldn't personally be comfortable with that. What would be the reason for only doing the Intel "half" of an update that was released in both flavours? Sam On 14 Dec 2006, at 17:36, Mats-Olof Liljegren wrote: > If I had something like this: > PPCbase.t > PPCupdates.k > Intelbase.t > Intelupdates.k > > and I install a Intel update but not the PPC update, how would that > effect PPC lbased Macs? > > PPCbase.t > PPCupdates.k > Intelbase.t > Intelupdates.k > Intelupdates2.k > > /Mats-Olof > > 29 nov 2006 kl. 20.13 skrev Sam Agnew: > >> I don't have any problems with my 10.4.8 Universal and I don't >> have any of the fancy scripts running either. I built up my 10.4.8 >> Uni just the same as all the previous ones. I did the updates >> seperately on PPC-only and Intel-only systems and then stuck it >> back together. Double-check your work. You are probably >> overlooking something simple. >> >> A simple mistake I made early on was to do something like this: >> >> PPCbase.t >> Intelbase.t >> PPCupdates.k >> Intelupdates.k >> >> This will not work reliably. It should be like this: >> >> PPCbase.t >> PPCupdates.k >> Intelbase.t >> Intelupdates.k >> >> Just throwing out some ideas... >> >> Sam >> >> On 29 Nov 2006, at 17:48, Doug Heady wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've had my Radmind Universal load working pretty well (10.4.5 >>> through 10.4.7) until 10.4.8. Now I'm stuck. I can get my Universal >>> 10.4.8 load to work on the Intel machines but not on the PPC. The >>> load will work on the PPC if I start in Safe Boot. >>> >>> I've updated the loads (Intel and PPC) individually to 10.4.8 and >>> they will both run on their corresponding hardware. Just not >>> together >>> as a universal (transcript in a transcript over lay). >>> >>> I've been watching the Radmind list but haven't seen a fix. I was >>> able get Greg Neagles scripts working. They are a big change from >>> the >>> stock scripts I've been using. I was not able to get these >>> scripts to >>> fix the transition to 10.4.8. >>> >>> Do you have any recommendations for building a 10.4.8 Universal load >>> or trouble shooting my problem? Wondered if there were any updated >>> scripts similar to the ones that come with the Radmind assistant. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Doug >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________________ >>> >>> Doug Heady >>> Information Systems Shared Support >>> 503 Thompson St., Fleming Bldg., Room 108 >>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1340 >>> Phone: 734-615-3336 Fax: 734-615-3590 >>> Computing Systems Support for: Presidents Office., Provost >>> Office, VP >>> for Gov't. Relations, VP for Communications, Regents, VP & Sec. of >>> the Univ., OAMI, General Counsel, VP of Research, Budget & Planning, >>> & VP of Student Affairs >>> ISSS webpage: http://www.umich.edu/~isss >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ----- >>> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT >>> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to >>> share your >>> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn >>> cash >>> http://www.techsay.com/default.php? >>> page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Radmind-users mailing list >>> Rad...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/radmind-users >> >> --- >> >> Sam Agnew >> Unix System Administrator >> Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---- >> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT >> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to >> share your >> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn >> cash >> http://www.techsay.com/default.php? >> page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV_______________________________ >> ________________ >> Radmind-users mailing list >> Rad...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/radmind-users > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV________________________________ > _______________ > Radmind-users mailing list > Rad...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/radmind-users --- Sam Agnew Unix System Administrator Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar |
From: Mats-Olof L. <mo...@mp...> - 2006-12-14 21:00:30
|
No reason at all, I was just curious. But it could be an issue for me because my clients checks for updates on every logout and if I put the Intel update on the radmind server and saves the new K file it maybe will go out to some of my PPC computers. I will also have to check both PPC and Intel computers that the updates worked. I have managed my clients with different loadsets and are now trying to understand the ups and downs with just making one base loadset with both PPC and Intel. Any thaughts on this is a good help for me. /Mats-Olof 14 dec 2006 kl. 19.01 skrev Sam Agnew: > In the case where there is no equivalent PPC update then obiviously > there will only be the Intel update. This should have no effect > when run on PPC. > > In cases where there are different PPC and Intel versions of the > same update for Intel and PPC I would always do both. Doing only > the Intel patch and then running the result on a PPC Mac may lead > to a funny situation where something is "half-patched" with > unpredictable results. It may in fact be fine but I wouldn't > personally be comfortable with that. > > What would be the reason for only doing the Intel "half" of an > update that was released in both flavours? > > Sam > > > On 14 Dec 2006, at 17:36, Mats-Olof Liljegren wrote: > >> If I had something like this: >> PPCbase.t >> PPCupdates.k >> Intelbase.t >> Intelupdates.k >> >> and I install a Intel update but not the PPC update, how would >> that effect PPC lbased Macs? >> >> PPCbase.t >> PPCupdates.k >> Intelbase.t >> Intelupdates.k >> Intelupdates2.k >> >> /Mats-Olof >> >> 29 nov 2006 kl. 20.13 skrev Sam Agnew: >> >>> I don't have any problems with my 10.4.8 Universal and I don't >>> have any of the fancy scripts running either. I built up my >>> 10.4.8 Uni just the same as all the previous ones. I did the >>> updates seperately on PPC-only and Intel-only systems and then >>> stuck it back together. Double-check your work. You are probably >>> overlooking something simple. >>> >>> A simple mistake I made early on was to do something like this: >>> >>> PPCbase.t >>> Intelbase.t >>> PPCupdates.k >>> Intelupdates.k >>> >>> This will not work reliably. It should be like this: >>> >>> PPCbase.t >>> PPCupdates.k >>> Intelbase.t >>> Intelupdates.k >>> >>> Just throwing out some ideas... >>> >>> Sam >>> >>> On 29 Nov 2006, at 17:48, Doug Heady wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I've had my Radmind Universal load working pretty well (10.4.5 >>>> through 10.4.7) until 10.4.8. Now I'm stuck. I can get my Universal >>>> 10.4.8 load to work on the Intel machines but not on the PPC. The >>>> load will work on the PPC if I start in Safe Boot. >>>> >>>> I've updated the loads (Intel and PPC) individually to 10.4.8 and >>>> they will both run on their corresponding hardware. Just not >>>> together >>>> as a universal (transcript in a transcript over lay). >>>> >>>> I've been watching the Radmind list but haven't seen a fix. I was >>>> able get Greg Neagles scripts working. They are a big change >>>> from the >>>> stock scripts I've been using. I was not able to get these >>>> scripts to >>>> fix the transition to 10.4.8. >>>> >>>> Do you have any recommendations for building a 10.4.8 Universal >>>> load >>>> or trouble shooting my problem? Wondered if there were any updated >>>> scripts similar to the ones that come with the Radmind assistant. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Doug >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ______________________________________ >>>> >>>> Doug Heady >>>> Information Systems Shared Support >>>> 503 Thompson St., Fleming Bldg., Room 108 >>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1340 >>>> Phone: 734-615-3336 Fax: 734-615-3590 >>>> Computing Systems Support for: Presidents Office., Provost >>>> Office, VP >>>> for Gov't. Relations, VP for Communications, Regents, VP & Sec. of >>>> the Univ., OAMI, General Counsel, VP of Research, Budget & >>>> Planning, >>>> & VP of Student Affairs >>>> ISSS webpage: http://www.umich.edu/~isss >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> ------ >>>> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT >>>> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance >>>> to share your >>>> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and >>>> earn cash >>>> http://www.techsay.com/default.php? >>>> page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Radmind-users mailing list >>>> Rad...@li... >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/radmind-users >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Sam Agnew >>> Unix System Administrator >>> Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ----- >>> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT >>> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to >>> share your >>> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn >>> cash >>> http://www.techsay.com/default.php? >>> page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV______________________________ >>> _________________ >>> Radmind-users mailing list >>> Rad...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/radmind-users >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---- >> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT >> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to >> share your >> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn >> cash >> http://www.techsay.com/default.php? >> page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV_______________________________ >> ________________ >> Radmind-users mailing list >> Rad...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/radmind-users > > --- > > Sam Agnew > Unix System Administrator > Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar > > > |
From: Nigel K. <ni...@co...> - 2006-12-14 21:05:42
|
On 15/12/2006, at 7:59 AM, Mats-Olof Liljegren wrote: > I have managed my clients with different loadsets and are now > trying to understand the ups and downs with just making one base > loadset with both PPC and Intel. So from watching those of you who are doing this... I'm starting to wonder whether you still think it is worthwhile using a hacked together Universal install? Seems like a reasonable amount of work, and when I look at my imaging system and see how many nested command files I have, it's really not that big a deal to manage the two OS's independently... |
From: Josh W. <mac...@af...> - 2006-12-15 13:58:17
|
On Thu, December 14, 2006 4:05 pm, Nigel Kersten wrote: > > On 15/12/2006, at 7:59 AM, Mats-Olof Liljegren wrote: > >> I have managed my clients with different loadsets and are now >> trying to understand the ups and downs with just making one base >> loadset with both PPC and Intel. > > > So from watching those of you who are doing this... I'm starting to > wonder whether you still think it is worthwhile using a hacked > together Universal install? > > Seems like a reasonable amount of work, and when I look at my imaging > system and see how many nested command files I have, it's really not > that big a deal to manage the two OS's independently... My thoughts exactly. I've got KinKinK for most of my stuff. Really all I need to maintain separately is the OS. My app Ks continue to work regardless of arch. Josh --=20 Josh Wisenbaker U, U, D, D, L, R, L, R, B, A, Start for your server http://www.afp548.com |
From: Sam A. <sa...@qa...> - 2006-12-16 14:26:55
|
For me it's fantastic. I have one base image, one netboot image. It's no extra hassle, really. I just reimage the Intel and PPC Mac and make both updates at the same time when one comes out. For everything else there's only one loadset (apps, etc.). Apart from when there's an Apple update and I have to create two loadsets instead of one it means I can pretty much fortget about architectures and just treat them all as Macs. Just a matter of taste, I guess. I've had zero issues. Sam On 15 Dec 2006, at 00:05, Nigel Kersten wrote: > > On 15/12/2006, at 7:59 AM, Mats-Olof Liljegren wrote: > >> I have managed my clients with different loadsets and are now >> trying to understand the ups and downs with just making one base >> loadset with both PPC and Intel. > > > So from watching those of you who are doing this... I'm starting to > wonder whether you still think it is worthwhile using a hacked > together Universal install? > > Seems like a reasonable amount of work, and when I look at my imaging > system and see how many nested command files I have, it's really not > that big a deal to manage the two OS's independently... > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Radmind-users mailing list > Rad...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/radmind-users --- Sam Agnew Unix System Administrator Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar |
From: David J. B. <dj...@ci...> - 2006-12-14 21:13:10
|
I used to be in the camp that though that Universal was the way to go. I'm not now. Too many other issues come up, like OpenOffice and Matlab not being available in Universal binaries. You have to handle those as PowerPC installs and Intel installs. Although it has been stable, there is still always the chance that something in the hacked Universal Radmind setup might not be liked on either set of hardware. So, this break, I'm splitting things back up and will handle each hardware platform as a separate OS installation. I'll be happy when Leopard ships, though, and this goes away! -David J. Blezard Academic Computing Systems University of New Hampshire On Dec 14, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Nigel Kersten wrote: > > On 15/12/2006, at 7:59 AM, Mats-Olof Liljegren wrote: > >> I have managed my clients with different loadsets and are now >> trying to understand the ups and downs with just making one base >> loadset with both PPC and Intel. > > > So from watching those of you who are doing this... I'm starting to > wonder whether you still think it is worthwhile using a hacked > together Universal install? > > Seems like a reasonable amount of work, and when I look at my imaging > system and see how many nested command files I have, it's really not > that big a deal to manage the two OS's independently... > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Radmind-users mailing list > Rad...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/radmind-users |
From: Ian W. C. <ico...@re...> - 2006-12-14 22:27:58
|
On Dec 14, 2006, at 1:12 PM, David J. Blezard wrote: > On Dec 14, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Nigel Kersten wrote: >> So from watching those of you who are doing this... I'm starting =20 >> to wonder whether you still think it is worthwhile using a hacked =20 >> together Universal install? >> >> Seems like a reasonable amount of work, and when I look at my =20 >> imaging system and see how many nested command files I have, it's =20 >> really not that big a deal to manage the two OS's independently... > > I used to be in the camp that though that Universal was the way to =20 > go. I'm not now. > > Too many other issues come up, like OpenOffice and Matlab not being =20= > available in Universal binaries. You have to handle those as =20 > PowerPC installs and Intel installs. NI LabView is another app we run that requires an additional overload =20= on x86. Audacity is not universal yet either. Plus Reader 8 is out now. I actually had to *split* a formerly-=20 universal command file! =97IWC |
From: Andrew M. <adm...@um...> - 2006-12-14 21:50:11
|
On Dec 14, 2006, at 4:12 PM, David J. Blezard wrote: > I used to be in the camp that though that Universal was the way to > go. I'm not now. I tend to agree. (I'm no longer managing Macs as my full-time job, so this feeling is not based on daily experience.) When I wrote the whitepaper for creating a Universal 10.4, I concluded with the hope that the information would "help ease the transition from PowerPC to Intel Macintosh hardware in enterprise environments." I think this goal has enjoyed modest, limited success, but that transition is over and consequently the value of a Universal 10.4 is diminished: the only hardware coming from Apple now uses Intel processors. Administrators who have not been deploying Universal loadsets to this point will get far less return on their efforts now that Leopard is in sight. I don't recommend it now except as an exercise or in cases where administrators are unable to avoid mixing hardware in a single location. Administrators who already have it in place and continue to enjoy success may not have a reason to alter the setup. There are alternatives, among which is pre-processing a template command file on the client based on processor type, but they also require some overhead that the average administrator may not be especially interested in taking on. Segregating PPC from Intel and maintaining separate base loadsets is most straightforward and most likely to succeed until Leopard's advent. andrew |
From: Mats-Olof L. <mo...@mp...> - 2006-12-14 22:07:02
|
Thank's for all replays. I will stick to separate loadsets and wait for the next cat. /Mats-Olof 14 dec 2006 kl. 22.49 skrev Andrew Mortensen: >> I used to be in the camp that though that Universal was the way to >> go. I'm not now. > > I tend to agree. (I'm no longer managing Macs as my full-time job, so > this feeling is not based on daily experience.) |
From: Sam A. <sa...@qa...> - 2006-12-16 14:42:43
|
I'm kind of bemused by the reactions here. For me the Universal setup has been a solved problem for a long time now. The only reason I don't run it full time everywhere is that I have like 95% PPC still. Every Intel machine gets my Universal and I routinely run my desktop on the "student" Universal image. I've honestly never had a single issue with it that wasn't down to kernel extension caches or to do with the naming and symlink vs. real conflicts in the HP printer driver tree (between PPC and Intel versions of the OS). I find it amazing that it sounds like so many people are having issues. My base image and my NetBoot image have been Universal for what seems like forever now and I find it great that it removes the architecture issue. I remain willing to help anyone struggling with this setup. Once you get the basics right I really don't see why it should be any hassle. I agree with the sentiment that it shouldn't be pursued for its own sake. I don't build my production Macs Universal now but I'm sure this will change when our new Intels are deployed. I have no worries and for me this was always the point. To be ready for anything at a moment's notice. I've probably deployed 30 machines Universal by now so I'm not without experience as I write this. Sam On 15 Dec 2006, at 00:49, Andrew Mortensen wrote: > > On Dec 14, 2006, at 4:12 PM, David J. Blezard wrote: > >> I used to be in the camp that though that Universal was the way to >> go. I'm not now. > > I tend to agree. (I'm no longer managing Macs as my full-time job, so > this feeling is not based on daily experience.) > > When I wrote the whitepaper for creating a Universal 10.4, I > concluded with the hope that the information would "help ease the > transition from PowerPC to Intel Macintosh hardware in enterprise > environments." I think this goal has enjoyed modest, limited success, > but that transition is over and consequently the value of a Universal > 10.4 is diminished: the only hardware coming from Apple now uses > Intel processors. > > Administrators who have not been deploying Universal loadsets to this > point will get far less return on their efforts now that Leopard is > in sight. I don't recommend it now except as an exercise or in cases > where administrators are unable to avoid mixing hardware in a single > location. Administrators who already have it in place and continue to > enjoy success may not have a reason to alter the setup. > > There are alternatives, among which is pre-processing a template > command file on the client based on processor type, but they also > require some overhead that the average administrator may not be > especially interested in taking on. Segregating PPC from Intel and > maintaining separate base loadsets is most straightforward and most > likely to succeed until Leopard's advent. > > andrew > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Radmind-users mailing list > Rad...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/radmind-users --- Sam Agnew Unix System Administrator Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar |